As you've highlighted through your question, the engagement of all Canadians will in fact be critical to Canada's achieving the SDGs, and this is the case for all countries. It is a universal agenda, which means that it's global. It's not only for developing countries. It's also for Canada and Canadians and all levels of government.

In fact, there is room for greater awareness amongst Canadians and at all levels of government. The announcement by the government on April 17 of the plans to develop a national strategy recognizes this, that we will be developing a national strategy in consultation with the private sector, academia, civil society and all Canadians. The new SDG unit will be critical to building that awareness.

On April 17 we online a new web portal that is meant to help build that awareness. It is asking Canadians to provide their contributions to how they're helping achieve the SDGs.

I would simply editorialize on your last point that I think one of the most important outreach opportunities will be with our municipalities, because they are close to our citizenry and they have that opportunity to connect directly. In my experience, federal government consultations that reach out sometimes do not quite get to every single small town and city across the country.

Shifting to the conservation issue, I want to congratulate our Environment Canada and Parks officials on the successful work they did to convince the finance minister to invest in the way that he did in conservation. That's a major achievement.

I want to go very specifically to the issue of how we understand those funds will be disbursed. There are a number of local conservation groups, national conservation groups, and other interested parties who have contacted me to ask how they can engage with the federal government and at a regional level to best enable partnerships in the manner that it seems the federal government is heading so that local conservation initiatives can be supported.

In the riding of Pontiac there are groups that who are very interested in supporting protection of the forêt Boucher. There are other groups who are very interested in establishing a regional network of protected areas in collaboration with the provincial government and the Algonquin. How can they best engage in the process with the funds that are now available?

I would say, as you know, the work that has been done on the pathway to Canada target 1 over the course of the last 18 months has really focused on reaching the numerical target, but not only the numerical target. It's also looking at making sure that the places that have been identified to reach that target are effectively managed. I would say that the most transformative element of the pathway process is the connective landscape approach, and that with new tools and by increasing the number of players involved in conservation, taking a landscape-connected area approach is going to bring all of these new ideas into play for conservation.

We are in the process of standing up the nature fund that is referred to in the budget, which is a $500-million investment over five years. We we will see that matched through partnerships with corporate entities, not-for-profits, and federal and provincial governments and organizations.

There will be lots and lots of opportunities. I would just ask you to hold on for a little bit, and when we have the details of that fund worked out, we will be reaching out. There will be opportunities, both on the species side and in protected areas, in a number of different programs that people can express their interest in obtaining funding from and partnering with governments to achieve these conservation outcomes.

I will follow up on something Mr. Amos said, but I'm not going to be quite as polite. I'm getting really tired of civil servants listing the groups they are talking to—these provincial, territorial, indigenous groups, academics and so on. Rural communities, natural resources communities, and municipalities are never ever mentioned in those lists, and this simply must stop, because those communities are extremely critical in the delivery of conservation, and their efforts and their position and authority need to be recognized.

Ms. Milburn-Hopwood, when you do a recovery plan under SARA, do you do a socio-economic analysis of the potential impacts of recovery plans on communities?

The objective of a recovery strategy is actually to determine the needs of the species in terms of what is needed for it to recover, or to protect it. When we move into the action planning stage, which is part of the recovery process, that's when we start looking at the socio-economics and the numbers of ways one might protect or recover that species.

Given the woodland caribou issue and the amount of land people are talking about conserving for woodland caribou habitat—which, by the way, will not be effective no matter how much land you do conserve—communities in northern Alberta are absolutely terrified about the future of their communities given the case of the Northern Goshawk in northern B.C. Ironically, the Northern Goshawk in B.C. is a subspecies of an extremely abundant bird, so you have some problems with COSEWIC in delineating what a species is.

More on the good news front, Ms. Milburn-Hopwood, I'm a big fan of your SARPAL program, which is species at risk partnerships on agricultural lands. It's working very successfully.

The SARPAL program is called the species at risk partnerships on agricultural lands, and it was really a pilot initiative. We are in the fifth year of five-year initial funding but it will be extended.

Essentially it allows us to work with agricultural partners, whether they be ranchers or farmers or other folks, to actually help them figure out what needs to take place on the landscape to actually protect or recover the species.

We have had a lot of success in this pilot and currently have conservation agreements with over 46 landowners under which we work with the agricultural partner to determine what needs to be done, and we wrap that up in an agreement and there is some funding to support that partner.

It is a very successful program, and we look forward to continuing that program.

Yes, I know. In southwestern Manitoba, I've been informed by scientists who've been doing research there that the species at risk are primarily found only on land that is ranched a certain way. As you well know, the Audubon Society has a program called the conservation ranching program. This leads into the issue of active management for the recovery of endangered species. I certainly hope, Ms. Milburn-Hopwood, that that very successful SARPAL program continues and is expanded.

Mr. Prosper, regarding national parks.... As you know, I live right next to Riding Mountain National Park. I was talking to a staff person there, and there's aspen encroachment in the prairie areas. As you know, the rough fescue prairie is an important habitat and is very much at risk.

Do you intend to take the bull by the horns, as it were, and start doing some active vegetation management in a park like Riding Mountain National Park, to conserve the rough fescue grasslands and to provide more habitat for the very important Manitoba subspecies of elk?

I don't know that I have the information specific to Riding Mountain. We do have a very active vegetation management program wherein we utilize prescribed fire—this is the fire season right now—to manage landscapes in favour of those types of ecosystems that, in the absence of natural fire, won't continue. We do have a very active program of maintaining grasslands through fire.

Yes, I strongly support that approach. Perhaps it's the farmer in me, but I think that because there are no fires in our national parks anymore, we have to step in and do something. I applaud Parks Canada for that.

Dr. Komal, I'd like to talk to you about CFIA. This is not related to your testimony. The wildlife groups across Canada are very concerned by CFIA's withdrawal from the chronic wasting disease file or management of this very significant disease that has the potential to decimate wild ungulates, especially deer and elk.

Will CFIA be in a position to come back to the CWD file? If not, why has it abandoned that file?

We moved from managing the program in one way to a different way, because we were looking at how the management of the program was responding to what we were trying to do. We were trying to eradicate CWD from Canada. We were not having any success, and we were paying money in compensation.

I just want to make sure that the member knows that CFIA's responsibility is for the farmed animals. We work with other partners to make sure that diseases in the wildlife are taken care of. Depending on where wildlife is, there's a responsibility of different partners to work on it. We're trying to work with them to make sure that we are minimizing the impact of CWD in Canada, both on the domestic and the wildlife sides.

I'd like to start with a reminder of why we've invited all of you stellar federal officials to come before us. It is because of the significant failings identified, yet again, by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development on your delivery of the sustainable development goals, or delivery on the international commitments and legal duties to protect biodiversity. It's a very clear report with a long list of failings. One of the strongest ones from the commissioner is that the Department of the Environment has failed to provide the necessary leadership across agencies.

I would like to have your deputies here because they give you your marching orders, and it is a question that has plagued our country since I started in this work 50 years ago.

My question for the ADMs here is, to what extent is the direction to maintain friendly federal-provincial relations prevailing over your ability to deliver on your international commitments and your legislative obligations on threatened species?

To what extent, do your marching orders from above, that you need to maintain friendly federal-provincial relations, prevail over your actually delivering on your responsibilities under Canadian legislation, for example, under the SARA?

The government is very committed to delivering on its responsibility under the Species at Risk Act. You will see, on the boreal caribou, that we are rolling out the responsibilities that we have. We are working with the provinces. Should we need to take further action under the act, the minister is prepared to do that.

I am glad you raised the boreal caribou, because that's one of the clear areas, including the mountain caribou, where the federal government is not intervening or meeting either of its responsibilities that were included in the timeline. We know there are two herds of mountain caribou in B.C. They are essentially extinct.

The other way I would put my next question to you is as follows. Given the responsibilities and commitments to sustainable development and the protection of biodiversity, and to the rights and interests of indigenous peoples, particularly treaty rights, why did these agencies not intervene to raise concerns about the transboundary impacts of the Site C dam, and about potential impacts to the world heritage site?

Is there nobody present who can speak to the responsibilities of protecting the biodiversity at that world heritage site?

I guess my question would be, in what circumstance would Parks Canada, or Wildlife Services, or Environment Canada see an obligation or be directed to have an obligation to intervene, and refuse a major project like the Site C dam, and identify the impacts and potentially address what the mitigation measures might be?

As you know, in terms of the mission for Wood Buffalo and the identification of the key challenges to maintaining the universal values of Wood Buffalo under the convention, we have a process to respond to that, including a strategic environmental assessment—

There are going to be a wide variety of players involved in the response to that, because we're dealing with species, with the Peace-Athabasca delta, with water flows, and so on. There are a variety of both federal, provincial, and territorial jurisdictions responsible for some of those areas as well as for our relationship with indigenous people. The action plan will spell out how each of those parties plays a role in pursuing the action plan, so that the park does not get inscribed as a place in danger.